my little diatribe

[55'gibby]

There has been a lot of chat around here lately about writing music, and there seems to be two schools of thought. One is figger out what your going to write then write it, and the other is the let it just flow camp. Here's my take:

another phrase for witing a song is composing music. Within the tools used to compose is melody, harmony, arrangement, musical tension, voicings, tempo, pathos, phrasing, style, time, lyrical content, and many more. If you notice I DID NOT mention theory, theory is but a tool to help you develop the REAL components of music. All great music must begin with an idea, not a scale and the appropriate chord progression. If you read or listen to any good songwriter you'll hear things like "I've been playing around with this riff" or "My girlfiend left so I wrote this" or "during detox I was playing my guitar and this song just kinda wrote itself". At no time have I never heard "I wanted to use a D flat mixolydian and a 2,3,6 progression". The object to writing music is to covey a story, evoke emotion, or set a mood all in all your objective is to entertain.
To say that I don't believe that thereory isn't important, would be a lie. But is mearly a tool, a VERY important tool, but a tool just he same. To base you composition on theory alone, is to ignore the far larger picture. To begin with theory on your composition and use that as the jump off point is like saying "I want to write a book because I'm a real good speller". Why waste the time writing if you have nothing to say? Theory is used to develop harmonies, theory is used to create solos, theory is used to find chord voicings. not how to apply harmonies, solos, and voicings.
One thing to keep in mind MOST of the really great songs were not written by a techical genuis, rather, they were written by someone with a story to tell and an interesting way to tell it. Even classical composers began a simple melody, and an emotion that they wanted to covey, then develop the story they want to tell. It's AFTER these things are completed, then and only then, does knowlege of theory become of any value.

Now your take

[se77en]

I just hit a note and "feel" the rest of it...if you wanna call that "flowing crap" then I guess thats what I do...i don't see anything wrong with it...people seem to like the music that I write...i've got tons of songs....going to Kansas City in a few weeks to record about 10 to 12 of em...i'll post some stuff for all you guys when I get back.

[55'gibby]

you missed my point.... you are starting with an idea and building from there, if you admit it or not. my point was far too little is made of composition, and far too much is made of theory. does someone believe that just because someone is writing music that they must know tons of theory. I would beg to differ, I can name far more "un-schooled" musicians that have made great musical pieces than I can name "schooled" that have written great pieces. What I am trying to get across is the need for learning composition as well as being entertaining, two things that have seem to have gotten lost here.

[eische]

just first with the idea you have as a basis: "I wanted to use a D flat mixolydian and a 2,3,6 progression" could be a brilliant idea, if you want to »generate« a song to prove yourself some of your theoretical learning for example. And I guess most of the 12-tone-composers go from such an idea, because this is a very theoretical music all in all (let me compare that to conceptional writing a story say on the basis: »I don't want to use words with e«).

The theory thing is just a matter of how you look at theory: On the one hand you put it as a tool, but as an isolated topic, you learn aside from the playing. On the other hand you don't learn anything without learning theory too, if your conscious of it or not. Like you practise your chords, fine. A chord in itself is theory, if you want to see it that way - or it's just a way of different notes sounding brilliantly together.
So if you train your ear by playing, you learn which notes sound together. Theory then is just the explanation-system for that phenomenon. But if you use the notes that sound together, you use them in a theoretically correct way, even if you don't know. The thing is: to talk about it and explain the whys and hows, you need the language of theory, that's all.
hmmm, I don't know if this is too confusing....:p

[se77en]

i see what yer sayin gibby....when it comes to writing I only go for what sounds good...if what comes out is considered "musically correct" than fine....if not...fine...i deal with the "theory" of it later...i play what I feel.

I too can name alot more musicians that don't know theory than I can that do...hell some of the best guitarists that I've played with can't spell a Gmaj scale or tell you exactly what chord they are playing...but man...were those guys great....

Music is nothing more than an opinion and an idea anyway...i play what I feel.

[55'gibby]

seeing someone play live and play with passion, to me, is a real treat. I'll forget the clinker note you played LOOOOOOOOOONG before I forget the passion you played with.
to put up a story:
Johnny Winter was in the studio recording some tracks with John Lee Hooker. John Lee was changing up the chords at some odd times, throwing off the rest of the band. When Johnny Winters asked him about it, John Lees response was "I change chords when it fits the song". the moral is: the music is the thing that matters.
I didn't do this little diatribe to tell someone how to write music, I did it to try to open up the whole topic of composition. For me, 90% of the music that I hear is very boring, it's my hope this trend doesn't last. I would love to hear new music, played with passion, and saying something and saying it in an interesting way (you figger out whats interesting to you).